Predicting response to a community‐based educational workshop on incontinence among community‐dwelling older women: Post hoc analysis of the CACTUS‐D trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Our goal was to identify which women participating in an educational workshop on incontinence were most likely to benefit from it. METHODS: We included women aged 65 or older, living in the community, and not treated for incontinence despite reporting urinary leakage at least twice a week. The workshop's aims were to change beliefs about accepting incontinence as a normal part of ageing, explain that incontinence is not irreversible, and that solutions exist. We performed structured interviews at 6 and 12 months to assess impressions of improvement (PGI-I) and changes in both continence (ICIQ-FLUTS) and quality of life (I-QOL). RESULTS: The analysis included 392 women, 39% aged 80 or older and 57% with daily urinary incontinence. Twelve months after the workshop, 16% of women were "much better" (PGI-I); factors associated with impression of improvement were refusal to believe that incontinence is part of normal ageing at baseline and improvement of urinary symptoms. The median improvement was 4 points on the ICIQ-FLUTS and 8 on the I-QOL. Factors associated with a clinically significant improvement in urinary symptoms were more severe baseline urinary incontinence, obesity, and starting Kegel exercises. Factors associated with a clinically significant improvement in quality of life were a poor urinary quality of life at baseline and an age younger than 81 years. CONCLUSIONS: A short, inexpensive and nonmedical intervention can change the mind-set and behavior of older women with incontinence who are not seeking care. A clinically significant improvement is possible even in women with severe symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".